About your Search

20130706
20130714
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. here's a chart that shows america's trade deficit. and energy, imported energy comprises the largest account. we haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the 1970's when the job hemorrhage started in this country. and it gets worse every year. america's future depends on innovation. we can't continue to live like this. every community you go to in this country, they say, well, we have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job or, gosh, i had to get another job and i had my salary cut in half. it's pretty obvious what's been happening. the major category of trade deficits is energy imports. energy. because we are not self-sufficient in energy production in this country. part of the answer lies in new energy systems. systems that even nasa has helped us to begin to invent. yes, in the solar fields. yes, in new hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen. yes, in natural gas. thank goodness the department invested in fossil fuel technologies. that's where the fracking technologies came from. it came from thinking about the future, not living in the past. so the gentleman's
meltdown. and federal dollars are very scares. as we face this huge deficit together, we have to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. i rise to oppose the amendment of the the gentleman from georgia. his amendment would cut $15 million. i should say for the record, we cut $220 million from last year's number and so we have substantially reduced this account. let me just say, too, the basic science program within the department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our nation. cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, first american scientists and industry and blemishes our credibility as a world-wide leader in basic science programs. i oppose his amendment and urge others to do likewise. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the las
at a time of sequestration and a time of deficits, how can we spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less? in addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons activities and defense programs. at a time where we're winding down our involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars this last decade, and that's why i'm offering an amendment with representative quigley that would put the v-16 back to the agency's request level that would save taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. this bill actually increases funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs. at an era where americans should expect the government to look at where these moneys are invested. there have been growing concern raised by the air force's own blue ribbon review panel about the effectiveness of the b-61 and that's why the price -- the price for this program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the missile program has dropped. in fact, some of our nato allies like germany have called for the b-61's to be removed from their boarders. ag
in the future and paying off our deficit. we simply cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research, the private sector can do better and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits. our energy sector has some of the of the most promising ideas and technologies in the world. our energy policy, however, is horribly outdated. h.r. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by some 60% and adds additional money that the administration either want -- neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. at the same time it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel r&d. in fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country. more than $500 billion in 2011. and they often go to expensive projects with little upside. the fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. fossil fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest profits in the world, and they can shoulder than other r&d costs. -- their own r&d costs. this is a clear example of dupl
. host: we'll let you go there. guest: i think that the trade deficit had been an issue for the u.s. there have been a lot of jobs, essentially we opened up ourselves to the world from a global trade perspective and we didn't really put a lot of emphasis on making sure that the other countries that we were doing business with had, say, the same labor standards, the same pay levels. so many american workers were thrown into competition with a huge global competition with workers willing to be paid a lot less. so a lot of that work was transferred there. some people say that's the way it goes and how the global economy moves around. that might be the case. but that doesn't mean there aren't jobs americans can't do. and the definition of doing something that your caller -- i agree that there are do-nothing jobs in every organization probably. but the point that your caller was making i think there are -- the definition of doing something is very broad and there are a lot of thing that is need to be done in this country including services jobs that aren't getting filled by the private
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)